新編研究生綜合英語教程UNIT1(潘海英)

新編研究生綜合英語教程

AdvancedEnglishforGraduateStudents:

GeneralSkills&AcademicLiteracy第一頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。UnitOne

ResearchandMethodology第二頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。TextAWhyTeachResearchEthicsTextBTheNatureofInquiry第三頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Inadditiontoabodyofknowledgethatincludesformulasandfacts,scienceisthepracticebywhichwepursueanswerstothequestionsthatcanbeapproachedscientifically.Thispracticeisreferredtocollectivelyasscientificresearch,andwhilethetechniquesthatscientistsusetoconductresearchmaydifferbetweendisciplines,likebiology,chemistry,geology,physics,oranyotherscientificfield,theunderlyingprinciplesandobjectivesaresimilar.Nowweareatatimeinwhichtheneedtobuildtrustbetweenscienceandsocietyisbecomingevermoreimportant.Preface第四頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。ltisvitalthattheconductofscienceitselfisbasedonthehighestethicalconsiderationsandthatmisconductwithinscienceitselfcanbeidentifiedanddealtwithinanopenandtransparentmanner.TextA,WhyTeachResearchEthics,examinestheroleandimportanceofethicaleducationonthepartofstudentsandfaculty.Beginningwithtwostoriesaboutunconsciousmisconduct,JudyE.SternandDeniElliottbringuptheurgentneedtoteachethicsinordertoensureagoodpracticeofscience.第五頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Suchnecessityarisesfromtheinadequacyoftraditionalindividualmentoringinhelpinglearnconventionsofscience.Oneaspectofresearchethicsconcernsresearchers'professionalspiritinthepursuitofultimatetruth,thatistosay,goodsciencemustbeconductedthroughrigorous,systematicandreplicableprocedure.InTextB,TheNatureofInquiry,theauthorswillelaborateonhowscientificresearchdistinguishesitselffromcommon-senseknowing,howresearchersapproachrealitydifferently,andwhatphilosophicalassumptionsunderpineachapproach.第六頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。

BackgroundInformation

Pre-readingQuestions

TextAWhyTeachResearchEthics

VocabularyExercisesTextAWhyTeachResearchEthicsContents第七頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。1.Informationabouttheauthors2.Informationaboutresearchethics3.CulturalBackgroundInformationBackgroundInformation第八頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。TextExplanation&TranslationOrganizationoftheTextTextAWhyTeachResearchEthics

第九頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Vocabulary1.CoreVocabularyList22.Vocabulary第十頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。ExpandingtheNotionofThemetoLarger

StructuresthanClauseTheModeDifferenceofSpeech&WritingThethemeandrhymeaccordingtoFunctionallinguistThematicProgression第十一頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。AcomparisonofspeechwithwritingTheModeDifferenceofSpeech&Writing

ThedifferencebetweenSpeech&writing第十二頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。CoreVocabularyListThematicProgressionExpandingtheNotionofThemetoLargerStructures

thanClause

第十三頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。l.ComprehensionIIWordStudyIIIClozeVWritingExercisesIVTranslation第十四頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。IComprehension

1.AnswerQuestions2.Paraphrase第十五頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。IVTranslation1.EnglishTranslation2.ChineseTranslation第十六頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。WhyTeachResearchEthics

selectedfrom“TheEthicsofScientificResearch”

HanoverandLondon:UniversityPressofNew

England,Hanover,1997.JudyE.Stern&DeniElliott第十七頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。1.Informationabouttheauthors2.InformationaboutresearchethicsBackgroundInformation3.CulturalBackgroundInformation第十八頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。JudyE.SternisaprofessorfromGieselSchoolofMedicineatDartmouthCollege.Herprofessionalinterestsincludeoutcomesofassistedreproductivetechnology,ethicalissuesinassistedreproduction,ethicalissuesinscientificresearchandreproductiveimmunology.D.Elliottisanethicistandethicsscholar,andhasbeenactiveinpracticalethicssincethe1980s.Background1.Informationabouttheauthors第十九頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。:Researchethicsinvolvestheapplicationoffundamentalethicalprinciplestoavarietyoftopicsinvolvingresearch,includingscientificresearch.Theseincludethedesignofresearchinvolvinghumanexperimentation,animalexperimentation,variousaspectsofacademicscandal,includingscientificmisconduct(suchasfraud,fabricationofdataandplagiarism),whistleblowing;regulationofresearch,etc.Researchethicsismostdevelopedasaconceptinmedicalresearch.Thekeyagreementhereisthe1974DeclarationofHelsinki.TheNurembergCodeisaformeragreement,butwithmanystillimportantnotes.Researchinthesocialsciencespresentsadifferentsetofissuesthanthoseinmedicalresearch.Background2.Informationaboutresearchethics第二十頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。BackgroundSouthKoreanScientistHwangWoo-SukwasaccusedoffabricatingdataProfessorofXi’anJiaotongUniversityLiLianshengwasdeprivedoftheNationalAwardforplagiarism.第二十一頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Researchethicsinvolvestheapplicationoffundamentalethicalprinciplestoavarietyoftopicsonscientificresearch.Thesetopicsincludethedesignandimplementationofresearchinvolvinghumanexperimentation,animalexperimentation,variousaspectsofacademicscandal,includingscientificmisconduct(suchasfraud,fabricationofdataandplagiarism)whistleblowing,regulationofresearch,etc.Researchethicsismostdevelopedasaconceptinmedicalresearch.Thekeyagreementhereisthe1974DeclarationofHelsinki.TheNurembergCodeisaformeragreement,butNithmanystillimportantnotes.Researchinsocialsciencespresentsadifferentsetofissuesthanthoseinmedicalresearch.3.CulturalBackgroundInformation第二十二頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Theacademicresearchenterpriseisbuiltonafoundationoftrust.Researcherstrustthattheresultsreportedbyothersaresound.Societytruststhattheresultsofresearchreflectanhonestattemptbyscientistsandotherresearcherstodescribetheworldaccuratelyandwithoutbias.Butthistrustwillendureonlyifthescientificcommunitydevotesitselftoexemplifyingandtransmittingthevaluesassociatedwithethicalresearchconduct.第二十三頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Therearemanyethicalissuestobetakenintoseriousconsiderationforresearch.Sociologistsneedtobeawareofhavingtheresponsibilitytosecuretheactualpermissionandinterestsofallthoseinvolvedinthestudy.Theyshouldnotmisuseanyoftheinformationdiscovered,andthereshouldbeacertainmoralresponsibilitymaintainedtowardstheparticipants.Thereisadutytoprotecttherightsofpeopleinthestudyaswellastheirprivacyandsensitivity.Theconfidentialityofthoseinvolvedintheobservationmustbecarriedout,keepingtheiranonymityandprivacysecure.AspointedoutintheBSAforSociology,alloftheseethicsmustbehonoredunlessthereareotheroverridingreasonsnottodoso-forexample,anyillegalorterroristactivity.第二十四頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Q1:Hasyoursupervisorintroducedyoutotheresearchethicsinyourfield?Ifyes,howdidheorshedoso?Q2:Whatdoyouthinkisaneffectivewayofpreventingunethicalbehaviorsinscientificstudy?Q3:Whatisyourpersonalstanceontheacademicdishonestylikefakingdata,stealingideas,orusurpinglanguagewithoutattribution?Q4:Inyourmind,whatarethecriteriafor

agoodpracticeofscience?Pre-readingQuestions第二十五頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。1.Recently,oneofushadtheopportunitytospeakwithamedicalstudentaboutaresearchrotationthatthestudentwasplanningtodo.ShewouldbeworkingwithDr.Z,whohadgivenhertheprojectofwritingapaperforwhichhehaddesignedtheprotocol,collectedthedata,andcompiledtheresults.Thestudentwastodoaliteraturesearchandwritethefirstdraftofthemanuscript.Forthisshewouldbecomefirstauthoronthefinalpublication.Whenconcernswereraisedabouttheproposedproject,Dr.Zwasshocked."lthoughtIwasdoingherafavor,"hesaidinnocently,"andbesides,Ihatewriting!"TextAWhyTeachResearchEthics1.最近，我們當(dāng)中的一員有機會與一名醫(yī)科學(xué)生談?wù)撍媱澮龅囊粋€實驗室輪轉(zhuǎn)項目。她將與給她布置論文撰寫任務(wù)的Dr.Z一起完成該項目。Dr.Z已經(jīng)設(shè)計好研究工具，并收集數(shù)據(jù)，整理了實驗結(jié)果。該學(xué)生只需做做文獻檢索，然后撰寫初稿。這樣，在論文最終出版的時候，她就可以成為第一作者。然而，當(dāng)該項目受到越來越多非議時，Dr.Z震驚之余無辜地說，“我以為我是在幫她，而我也確實討厭寫作”。JudyE.Stern&DeniElliott第二十六頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。2.Dr.Zisperhapsabitnaive.Certainly,mostresearcherswouldknowthatthestudent'sworkwouldnotmeritfirstauthorship.Theywouldknowthat"gift"authorshipisnotanacceptableresearchpractice.However,anearlierexperienceinourworkmakesuswonder.Severalyearsago,inconjunctionwiththegrantfromtheFundfortheImprovementofPottSecondaryEducation(FIPSE),ateamofphilosophersandscientistsatDartmouthCollege2ranaUniversitySeminarseriesforfacultyonthetopic"EthicalIssuesinscientificResearch."

2.Dr.Z或許有一點天真。當(dāng)然，大多數(shù)研究人員都知道，該學(xué)生所做的工作并不稱第一作者這個頭銜。他們知道，這種“贈予”原創(chuàng)作者頭銜的做法，并不是可以接受的科研行為。然而，早期的工作經(jīng)驗使我們產(chǎn)生疑問。若干年前，在高等教育改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一個由哲學(xué)家和科學(xué)家組成的團隊在達特茅斯學(xué)院，為全體教員舉辦以“科學(xué)研究中的倫理問題”為主題的系列講座。第二十七頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Atoneseminar,aseniorresearcher(let'scallhimProfessorR)arguedasimilarpositiontothatofDr.Z.InthiscaseProfessorRknewthat"gift"authorship,authorshipwithoutasignificantresearchcontribution,wasanunacceptableresearchpractice.However,hehadareasontogiveauthorshiptohisstudent.在其中一次研討會上，一個資深研究員（讓我們叫他R教授）與Dr.Z持有相似的觀點。在這個案例中，R教授明知道把原創(chuàng)作者身份“贈予”沒有研究貢獻的人是不符合學(xué)術(shù)道德規(guī)范的。然而，他卻有理由給他的學(xué)生一個作者身份。第二十八頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Thestudenthadworkedforseveralyearsonaprojectsuggestedbyhimandtheprojecthadyieldedtopublishabledata.Believingthathehadadutytothestudenttoensureapublication,ProfessorRhadgiventhestudentsomedatathathehimselfhadcollectedandtoldthestudenttowriteitup.Thestudenthadworkedhard,hesaid,albeitonanotherproject,andthestudentwoulddothewriting.Thus,hereasoned,theauthorshipwasnota"gift."因為這個學(xué)生已經(jīng)在他所建議的項目上花費了幾年的功夫，然而卻沒能發(fā)表任何研究結(jié)果。他認為他有責(zé)任幫助這名學(xué)生發(fā)表論文。于是R教授給了該學(xué)生一些他自己收集的數(shù)據(jù)，讓其撰寫一篇論文。R教授說這名學(xué)生一直努力的做項目，盡管不是同一項目，而且該生還負責(zé)論文寫作，所以他認為原創(chuàng)作者頭銜并不算“贈予”。第二十九頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。3.Thesetwostoriespointupamajorreasonforencouragingcoursesinresearchethics:Goodintentionsdonotnecessarilyresultinethicaldecisions.Bothofthefacultymembersintheabovescenarios"meantwell."Inbothcases,thefacultymemberstrulybelievedthatwhattheyweredoingwasmorallyacceptable.Inthefirstcase,Dr.Z'sindefensibleerrorwasthathewasunawareoftheconventionsofthefield.3.這兩個故事都強調(diào)了推動開設(shè)科研倫理課程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引導(dǎo)人們做出正確的道德選擇。上述兩個情節(jié)中的教師本意是好的。這兩個案例中的教師認為他們所做的事情在道德層面上是可以接受的。在第一個案例中，Dr.Z的解釋之所以站不住腳是因為他沒有意識到這一領(lǐng)域的公約。第三十頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Inparticular,heseemedblissfullyoblivioustothemeaningoffirstauthorship.Inthesecondcase,ProfessorRwasdongwhathethoughtbestforthestudentwithouttakingintoconsiderationthatmoral.tyisapublicsystemandthathisactionswithregardtoasinglestudenthavepublicconsequencesforthepracticeofscienceasaprofession.而他似乎也遺忘了第一作者的概念。在第二個案例中，R教授自認為他所做的事情都是對他學(xué)生最有益的，然而卻沒有考慮道德是一個公共體系，他對這一名學(xué)生的做法卻對科學(xué)研究產(chǎn)生了公共影響。第三十一頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。4.Well-meaningscientists,suchasthosejustmentioned,can,withthebestofintentions,makeunethicaldecisions.Insomecases,suchdecisionsmayleadindividualstobecomeembroiledincasesofmisconduct.Acourseinresearchethicscanhelpsuchscientiststoappreciatethatitistheirresponsibilitytoknowprofessionalconventionsaswellastounderstandthepublicnatureofmorality.4.例如剛剛提到的那些善意的科學(xué)家，他們的意圖是好的，但卻做出了不道德的決定。一些情況下，這樣的決定可能會導(dǎo)致個人卷入到學(xué)術(shù)不端的指控中。科研倫理課程可以幫助這樣的科學(xué)家明白，他們有責(zé)任去了解職業(yè)慣例以及公共道德的本質(zhì)。第三十二頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。5.Therearescientistsforwhomacourseinresearchethicswillbelessuseful.EfraimRacker,ina1989article,describedastudentinhislabwhowasa"professional"fabricatorofdata.Thisstudentcomposedlabbookswithoutperformingexperiments,addedradioactivematerialtogelstoproducebandswherehewishedthosebandstobe,andliedtohiscolleaguesabouthisactions.Anotherresearcher,EliasAlsabti,describedbyD.J.Miller,wasameticulousplagiarizer.5.對于有些科學(xué)家來說，科研倫理課程可能作用并不大。EfraimRacker在其1989年發(fā)表的文章中描述了一個他實驗室里“專業(yè)的”數(shù)據(jù)造假者。這名學(xué)生沒做實驗就拼湊出實驗書，在凝膠中添加放射性材料來合成他想要的繃帶，并欺瞞他的同事。D.J.Miller描述的另一位研究者EliasAlsabti是一個細心的剽竊者。第三十三頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Thisphysician-researcherfabricatedhiscurriculumvitae,copiedacolleague'sgrantforhisownuse,publishedotherpeople'sdataunderhisownname,andco-authoredhispilfereddatawithfictitiouscollaborators.Individualssuchastheseareunlikelytolearnresearchethicsthroughinstructionbecausetheyarenotinterestedinbecomingethicalpractitioners.這位醫(yī)師編造個人履歷，抄襲同事的基金申請書為己所用，以個人名義發(fā)表他人數(shù)據(jù)，并虛構(gòu)合作者一起用剽竊的數(shù)據(jù)合寫論文。像這樣的人是不會通過課程學(xué)習(xí)研究倫理的，因為他們對學(xué)術(shù)道德并不感興趣。第三十四頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。6.Theethicsofscientificresearchissomewhatuniquewithinprofessionalethicsinthesensethatgoodsciencerequirestheethicalpracticeofscience.Nevertheless,acourseinresearchethicscannotandshouldnothaveasitscentralfocusthequestion,"WhyshouldIbemoral?Thisquestion,whileimportant,isnotspecifictothefieldofscientificresearch.6.某種程度上講，科學(xué)研究倫理屬于職業(yè)道德的范疇，并且是獨一無二的。而一定意義上，好的科學(xué)研究要求符合道德規(guī)范的工作。然而，一門學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程不能夠也不應(yīng)該把“我為什么應(yīng)該遵守道德？”作為焦點問題。這個問題雖然重要，但并不只是具體針對學(xué)術(shù)研究領(lǐng)域。第三十五頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。正如達特茅斯團隊預(yù)想的那樣，一門學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程必須教會大家如何就科學(xué)研究做出有道德的決策。這將是專門為那些致力于成為遵守道德規(guī)范的研究人員而設(shè)計的課程。這樣的一門課程將會給學(xué)生提供這個問題的答案，“我怎樣才能做出一個符合道德的決定？”Acourseinresearchethics,asenvisionedbytheDartmouthteam,mustbeacoursethatteachesthetoolsformakingethicaldecisionsrelativetomattersofresearch.Itwillbedesignedforthosescientistswhoarealreadycommittedtobeingethicalresearchers.Suchacourseshouldprovidestudentstheanswerstothequestion,"HowcanImakemoraldecisions?"第三十六頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。

7Althoughitisthefabricatorsandtheplagiarizerswhomwemostoftenthinkofwhenwethinkofresearchmisconduct,thesearenottheonlypeopleaccusedofmisconduct.Theyareasonottheonlypeoplewhoareguiltyofmisconduct.Manyotherscientistshavehadliveandcareersaffectedbymisconductcases.7.雖然當(dāng)我們思考學(xué)術(shù)不端時，大多數(shù)時候我們想到的是數(shù)據(jù)造假者或者剽竊者，但是這些人并不是唯一被指控學(xué)術(shù)不端的人。同樣，他們也不是唯一被認定學(xué)術(shù)不端的人。許多科學(xué)家的生活和事業(yè)都曾受到了學(xué)術(shù)不端事件的影響。第三十七頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。8Itisundoubtedlyunfairtogeneralizefromafewcasesofmisconducttoanentireprofession.Nevertheless,reportedcasesofmisconductarenotuncommon,andthiscouldreflectafailuretotrainstudentstothehighestethicalstandards.The1993OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)4publicationreportedthe1991-1992caseloadtoinclude29institutionalinquiries,21institutionalinvestigations,andORIinquiriesorinvestigations.The1995ORIpublicationreportedthe1994caseloadas13institutionalinquiries,17institutionalinvestigations,and80RIinquiriesorinvestigations.8.然而，僅憑一些學(xué)術(shù)不端的個案來推論整個行業(yè)無疑是不公平的。不過已披露的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的確不在少數(shù)，這也反映了學(xué)生道德培養(yǎng)水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研誠信辦公室（ORI）的報告公布了其在1991年至1992年期間，對其自身以及29個機構(gòu)的訪談記錄和21個機構(gòu)的調(diào)查結(jié)果。1995年，該研究室的報告又涵蓋了1994年對于13個機構(gòu)的訪問和對17個機構(gòu)的調(diào)查，以及8份該研究室的調(diào)查研究。第三十八頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的調(diào)查顯示出，學(xué)術(shù)行為中主要涉及偽造、篡改、剽竊等，甚至多種不端行為的并存的情況。對于已結(jié)案件的調(diào)查中，僅有不足一半的涉及不斷行為，而且對被告方也實施了相應(yīng)的制裁。當(dāng)事人的學(xué)術(shù)職稱從技術(shù)人員到教授不等。案件多由科研機構(gòu)自己披露，并且當(dāng)事人均受到各種基金的資助。Ofactionsclosedintheseyears(5in1991-1992;44in1994),someinvolvedfabrication,somefalsification,someplagiarism,andotherssomecombinationoffabrication,falsification,plagiarism,and"othermisconduct."Slightlyfewerthanhalfoftheinvestigatedcasesclosedasofthesereportswerefoundtoinvolvemisconductandresultedinsanctionagainsttheaccusedparty.Theacademicrankoftheaccusedrangedfromtechniciantofullprofessor.Caseswerereportedfromanumberofinstitutions,andtheaccusedpartieswerefundedbyavarietyoffundingsources.第三十九頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。9Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinliefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.9.學(xué)術(shù)不端并不是能夠簡單評價的問題。其中一個重要問題是，在科學(xué)領(lǐng)域里，對于什么樣的行為有違倫理規(guī)范，應(yīng)當(dāng)受到懲罰，仍然模棱兩可。工程，法律，和醫(yī)學(xué)領(lǐng)域?qū)Φ赖滦袨榈亩x有明確的書面指導(dǎo)原則。雖然某些特別復(fù)雜的案例會挑戰(zhàn)這些原則的底線，但多數(shù)原則具有指導(dǎo)意義?？茖W(xué)研究也并不提供書面的行為準(zhǔn)則。第四十頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichinclude"otherquestionablebehavior"or"othermisconduct."Withinthisconfusionofdefinitionsitisnotalwaysobvioustostudentsorfacultywhereandtowardwhomtheirobligationslie.聯(lián)邦政府和私人機構(gòu)一直試圖闡明學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的裁定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，比如一些描述科研不端行為的核心定義，包括編造，篡改和等等。然而這些行為容易與包含“可疑行為”在內(nèi)的其他不太確定的類別相互混淆。這些混淆的定義讓學(xué)生和教職人員也不是很清楚他們到底承擔(dān)哪些責(zé)任和義務(wù)？第四十一頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。10Complicatingtheconfusiongeneratedbythewayinwhichwedefineresearchmisconductistheteachingprocessbywhichstudentsroutinelylearnabouttheethicalobligationsoftheirprofession.Traditionallyascientisttrainswithasinglementor.Fromthismentoringrelationshipthegraduatestudentisexpectedtolearnaboutscientificmethod,thebodyofknowledgethatconstitutesthespecificfieldofsciencesheisstudying,andthe"institution"ofscience.10.我們對學(xué)術(shù)不端的定義往往會帶來困惑，而學(xué)生們?nèi)粘W(xué)習(xí)職業(yè)道德規(guī)范的過程則更加劇了人們的困惑。傳統(tǒng)而言，一位科研工作者要接受導(dǎo)師的培訓(xùn)指導(dǎo)。通過指導(dǎo)，這名研究會學(xué)到科學(xué)研究方法，構(gòu)成她得學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的知識體系，和科學(xué)的“制度。第四十二頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Whatislearnedabouttheinstitutionofscienceincludesknowledgeofthemechanicsofobtainingfunding,informationonthewritingofgrantsandpapers,andanunderstandingoftherolesandresponsibilitiesformaintainingandsharingresearchdata.Aspartofherinstructioninalloftheseareas,itisassumedthatshewillalsolearntheethicsofscientificresearch.這些“制度”包括獲取經(jīng)費的技術(shù)性細節(jié)，關(guān)于基金申請和論文撰寫的知識，以及在維護和共享研究數(shù)據(jù)中的角色和職責(zé)的理解。除了以上這些方面，科學(xué)研究的倫理據(jù)信也將是她課程學(xué)習(xí)的一部分。第四十三頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。11InthecaseofthestoryofDr.Zabove,itisclearthatDr.Z'srelationshipwithhismentordidnotresultinhishavinglearnedabasicconventionofthefield.So,itisnotsurprisingthatDr.Zwaspreparedtopasshisunrecognizedconfusiontoastudentwhowasworkingwithhim.Mentoringrelationshipswithinscienceeducationdonotnecessarilyresultinadequatefamiliaritywiththeethicsofresearch.11.以Dr.Z的案子為例，很顯然，Dr.Z與他的導(dǎo)師的關(guān)系并沒有使他學(xué)到了這個領(lǐng)域的一個基本公約。所以，隨后Dr.Z把他的困惑傳遞給了他的學(xué)生，也就不足為奇了。因此，科學(xué)教育中的師徒關(guān)系不一定能使學(xué)生充分了解學(xué)術(shù)道德。第四十四頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。12JudithSwazey5oftheAcadiaInstitutehasstudiedthisissueandpresentssomeverydistressingdataoftheefficacyofmentoringrelationshipsingraduateeducation.Although89%of2,000graduatestudentrespondentsfrom98departmentsofmajorresearchinstitutionssaidthattheyrelatedtoasinglefacultymemberwhowasparticularlysupportiveoftheirwork,lessthan45%ofstudentsfeltthatthisfaculty

membergavethem"alot"ofhelptowardteachingthemthedetailsofgoodresearchpractice,and15to20%ofthestudentsfeltthatthehelptheygotinthisareawas"none."12.阿卡迪亞學(xué)院的Judith

Swazey對這一問題進行了研究，研究數(shù)據(jù)顯示研究生教育中師徒關(guān)系的效果令人失望。在對98所主要研究機構(gòu)中抽取的2000名研究生的調(diào)查中，89%的受訪者說他們只與一位非常支持他們工作的師長有聯(lián)系，不到45%的學(xué)生認為這為師長在告訴他們?nèi)绾翁岣哐芯抠|(zhì)量的細節(jié)方面，給了他們“許多”幫助。15%—20%的學(xué)生覺得他們在這一領(lǐng)域沒有收獲。第四十五頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Fewerthan45%ofstudentsbelievedthattheygot"alot"ofhelpfulcriticismonaregularbasis.Inthemajorityofcases,studentsfeltthattheirfacultysupportpersondidnotprovidethetypeofmentoringrelationshipthatonewouldhopeforintheethicstrainingofaresearchscientist.不足45%的學(xué)生認為他們定期的得到了很多有益的批評教育。但在大多數(shù)情況下，學(xué)生覺得與支持他們的師長并沒有建立那種他們希望的關(guān)系，一種可以從中學(xué)習(xí)到的一個科學(xué)家需要具備的學(xué)術(shù)道德的關(guān)系。第四十六頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。13WhenSwazeyaskedstudentstocomparetherolethatadepartmentshouldtakeinpreparingstudentstorecognizeanddealwithethicalissuesintheirfieldtotheroleactuallytakenbythedepartment,herresultswereequallydisturbing.Eighty-twopercentofstudentsfeltthedepartmentshouldtakean"active"or"veryactive"roleinthisprocess,whileonly22%feltthatanactiveorveryactiverolewasactuallytaken.13.在辨別和應(yīng)對學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的道德問題方面，Swazey讓學(xué)生們比較所在院系應(yīng)起的作用和實際所起的作用，結(jié)果同樣令人擔(dān)憂。82%的學(xué)生覺得院系應(yīng)該起到“積極的”或“非常積極的”作用，而只有22%的學(xué)生認為所在院系起到了“積極的”和“非常積極的”作用。第四十七頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。14Theperceptionsoffacultywerenotmuchdifferentfromthoseofthestudents.Ninety-ninepercentof2,000facultymemberssurveyedfeltthat"academicsshouldexercisecollectiveresponsibilityfortheprofessionalconductoftheirgraduatestudents;"only27%ofthesefacultyfeltthattheyfollowedthroughwiththisresponsibility.14.教職人員和學(xué)生們的看法沒有多大的不同。在接受調(diào)查的2000名教職人員中，有99%的人認為“學(xué)者們”應(yīng)該對研究生的職業(yè)行為負有集體責(zé)任，而只有27%的教職人員認為他們履行了這一職責(zé)。第四十八頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。15Thesedataprovideevidencetoindicatethatindividualmentoringisalessthanadequateteachingmethodforethics.Ifthemajorityofstudentsdonotreceivementoringthatleavesthemwithaclearunderstandingoftheirresponsibilitiesasscientists,thencasesofunintentionalmisconductandquestionablepracticeareinevitable.15.這些數(shù)據(jù)提供的證據(jù)表明，單獨的師生指導(dǎo)并不是最理想的道德教育方法。如果大多數(shù)學(xué)生所接受的指導(dǎo)，不能讓他們清晰地了解科研工作者的職責(zé)所在，那么無意識的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為與可疑的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為將在所難免。第四十九頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。16TheroleandimportanceofethicseducationhavebeguntoberecognizedbytheNIH.GuidelinesforNIFresearchtraininggrantsnowrequireaminimalnumberofhoursofethicseducatio'1.Ethicsneednotbetaughtwithinasinglegraduatecourse,butitisbeginningtoberecognizedthateducationinthebasicconventionsofthefieldandinthebasicapproachestoethicaldecisionmakingcannolongerbelefttoone-on-onementoringalone.16.美國國立衛(wèi)生研究院首先認識到學(xué)術(shù)道德教育的作用和重要性。美國國立衛(wèi)生研究院資助的研究培訓(xùn)指南要求用最短時間完成學(xué)術(shù)道德教育。學(xué)術(shù)道德不需要以單獨一門課程講授，但是人們開始認識到，學(xué)科基本慣例和道德決策的基本方法不能再僅僅依賴一對一的師生指導(dǎo)。第五十頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。Astheever-dwindlingavailabilityofresearchfundsfuelsthefireofcompetition,therewillbeincreasedpressureonscientiststobendorbreakrules.Researchlaboratories,particularlylargegroupswheresomestudentsrarelyseetheirfacultyadvisers,cannotbeassumedtoteachresearchethics,oreventotrainstudentsinallresearchconventions.由于科研基金數(shù)量持續(xù)減少，業(yè)內(nèi)的競爭愈發(fā)激烈，更多的科學(xué)家將迫于壓力而打破規(guī)則。尤其是在大型的研究實驗室，學(xué)生很少能見到他們的指導(dǎo)教師，所以無法指望實驗室教授學(xué)術(shù)道德，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生科研規(guī)范。第五十一頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。17.無論科研倫理是通過一個課程，一系列課程或是穿插在研究生課程中的研討班來學(xué)習(xí)，學(xué)生顯然需要更多的機會接觸學(xué)術(shù)道德。研究倫理需要而且必須以正式的方式教授。我們相信，在堅實的哲學(xué)理論框架指引下，學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程一定會給廣大學(xué)子帶來長遠的益處。17Whetherscientificethicsisapproachedthroughasinglecourseoraseriesofcoursesorseminarsthroughoutthegraduatecurriculum,ithasbecomeobviousthatstudentsneedexposuretoethicsinanumberofcontexts.Researchethicscanandmustbetaughtinaformalizedmanner.Itisourbeliefthatcoursesinresearchethicsthatincorporateasolidphilosophicalframeworkhavethegreatestpotentialforlong-termusefulnesstostudents.(1902words)第五十二頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。1JudyE.SternisaprofessorfromGieselSchoolofMedicineatDartmouthCollege.Herprofessionalinterestsincludeoutcomesofassistedreproductivetechnology,ethicalissuesinassistedreproduction,ethicalissuesinscientificresearchandreproductiveimmunology.Deni.Etliottisanethicistandethicsscholar,andhasbeenactiveinpracticalethicssincethe1980s.Zhushi

第五十三頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。DartmouthCollege,commonlyreferredtoasDartmouth,isaprivateIvyLeagueresearchuniversitylocatedinHanover,NewHampshire.IncorporatedastheTrusteesofDartmouthCollege,"itisoneofthenineColonialCollegesfoundedbeforetheAmericanRevolution.Withanundergraduateenrollmentof4,194andatotalstudentenrollmentof6,144,DartmouthisthesmallestuniversityintheIvyLeague第五十四頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。3Curriculumvitae(CV)isanequivalentofresume,whichprovidesanoverviewofaperson'sexperienceandotherqualifications.Insomecountries,aCVistypicallythefirstitemthatapotentialemployerencountersregardingthejobseekerandistypicallyusedtoscreenapplicants,oftenfollowedbyaninterview.第五十五頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)isoneofthebodiesconcernedwithresearchintegrityintheUnitedStates.TheOfficeofResearchIntegrityoverseesanddirectsthePublicHealthService(PHS)researchintegrityactivitiesonbehalfoftheSecretaryofHealthandHumanServiceswiththeexceptionoftheregulatoryresearchintegrityactivitiesoftheFoodandDrugAdministration.第五十六頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。5JudithP.SwazeyispresidentofTheAcadiaInstitute.Shereceivedabachelor'sdegreefromWellesleyCollegeandaPh.D.inthehistoryofsciencefromHarvardUniversity.第五十七頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。

MainIdeaPartOne:

(Para.1-3)PartTwo(Para.4-8)PartThree(Para.9-16)Partfour(Para.17)OrganizationoftheTextTwostoriesoffacultymembers’involvementwithacademicmisconductrevealthenecessityethicaltraininginscientificpractice.TherampantoccurrencesofacademicdishonestycallforgreaterattentiontothegravityoftheissueTraditionalindividualmentoringisinadequatetotrainingthewould-bescientists’ethicalbehaviorsbecauseresearchmisconducttooelusivetodefine.Restatementofthenecessityandimportanceofincorporatingethicalcoursesintotheeducationofbroadersense.第五十八頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。protocolembroiladjudicatecompilemeticulousdelineatefacultyfictitiousincorporatealbeitpractitionerpilferscenariosanctionenvisionobliviousinfringementcaseloadCoreVocabularyList第五十九頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。protocol

/?pr??t?k?l/n.theacceptedorestablished

codeofprocedureorbehaviorinanygroup,

organization,orsituation科學(xué)實驗報告/計劃；（外交條

約）草案；協(xié)議...acomputerprotocolwhichcouldcommunicateacrossdifferentlanguages.…一個可以在不同的語言之間傳遞信息的計算機協(xié)議。...theMontrealProtocoltophaseoutuseandproductionofCFCs.…逐步停止使用和生產(chǎn)含氯氟烴的《蒙特利爾議定書》。kyotoprotocol京都議定書networkprotocol網(wǎng)絡(luò)協(xié)議CoreVocabulary第六十頁，編輯于星期四：五點四十五分。com